I sailed with the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute for six years prior to retiring and though I served as Chief Engineer in all their vessels by far the most interesting was RV Atlantis ll. Atlantis ll was built in Key Highway Shipyard Baltimore Md. and was originally powered by two 1500 IHP ea Skinner Uniflow Steam Engines. This was prior to my being Chief in her as when I joined the two Skinner Uniflow Engines had been removed and replaced by two General Motors 12 cylinder 1500 IHP ea Two Stroke Uniflow Diesels. The reason I was told for the engine change out I was told was the necessity of using IFO for the boilers in the steam plant and the difficulties in obtaining IFO in the remote areas in which the ship operated. ie: Tahiti and Easter Island etc. The RMD's where gifted to WHOI by the US Navy and they had been built for submarines but never installed in same. We burned Marine Gas Oil in the EMD's and they where simply wonderful. I wish I could say the same for the Trunk Engine Gen Sets made by Caterpillar as the God damned things had a tendency to throw windings on occasion. Atlantis ll was modified to serve as the tender for the deep diving submersible ALVIN (of RMS Titanic fame) and in addition to being Chief Engineer I was also the dive and recovery officer for ALVIN. The ship had been fitted with an elaborate electro hydraulic A Frame Mechanism to put ALVIN in the Ocean and put her back aboard when she resurfaced. The A Frame was made by a Scottish (Dundee) company named Calley Hydraulics who still do a lot of work in the North Sea oil fields. My biggest headaches where always the Cat Generators (Naval Regulations said I had to have two on the switchboard in order to lift ALVIN back aboard (she was about 35 Tons) but on a number of occasions with windings gone we put our blind eyes to the telescope and lifted with only one dynamo and I'm glad I don't have a weak heart as the lights dimming during the hoist operation was simply fascinating.
Respectfully;
Hugh Curran aka beartracks

R58484956

17th April 2009, 13:33

Hugh an interesting story, thanks for posting same.

Ian J. Huckin

17th April 2009, 17:38

Re EMDs - did you have to use a special crankcase lub oil on the marine varient of that engine? The locomotive version had silver alloy gudgeon pin bearings and you could in no way what so ever use a lub with a ZZDP (basically zinc) additive as it would destroy the silver alloy in hours.

surfaceblow

17th April 2009, 17:59

Hugh,

The Truck Engine Generator Sets by GM (Detroit Diesel V-71's) faired no better. While I was on the USNS Kane the bolts holding the rotor poles broke after an over speed. I had to put plastic garbage bags over the air intakes to shut down the generator. The Roots Blower sucked in the seals so the engine was burning its lube oil after the fuel valves closed, the air damper also was bent from the force of it closing.

Joe

Beartracks

18th April 2009, 01:52

Re EMDs - did you have to use a special crankcase lub oil on the marine varient of that engine? The locomotive version had silver alloy gudgeon pin bearings and you could in no way what so ever use a lub with a ZZDP (basically zinc) additive as it would destroy the silver alloy in hours.
Ian:

I marvelled at the amount of crank case oil (standard detergent Mobil 40 weight if I remember correctly) we changed out of these engines for no basic reason. The Institute just kept supplying drums of oil and we seemed to change out about every 700 to 800 hours. I later found out that the US Government paid for all the POL . As for special gudgeon bearings this is the first time I've heard that. We had standard oil chemical analysis and used to check viscosity our selves about once or twice a week to look for fuel dilution. I remember changing "power packs" which was a complete cylinder piston . liner crankshaft bearing assembly that renewed just about everything as far as running gear was concerned on a cylinder. All told as I said before there was hardly any problem with those EMDs.
Hugh

Beartracks

18th April 2009, 01:56

Hugh,

The Truck Engine Generator Sets by GM (Detroit Diesel V-71's) faired no better. While I was on the USNS Kane the bolts holding the rotor poles broke after an over speed. I had to put plastic garbage bags over the air intakes to shut down the generator. The Roots Blower sucked in the seals so the engine was burning its lube oil after the fuel valves closed, the air damper also was bent from the force of it closing.

Joe

Joe;

I flat out refused to check the overspeed trips on the trunk engines. I made the Coast Guard as well as the ABS guy put them on a test stand and seal the adjustment after testing. You are right on target there. When I started doing that no more thrown windings.
Hugh

Don Matheson

18th April 2009, 17:58

Hugh as Ian says there was a notification from EMD about oil type and use. The zinc used in some oils destroyed the wrist pins and as Ian says they managed it within hours.
Oil use was rather critical on these engines especially if they were working hard. Went to do an inspection on a rig where the manager thought he knew better than EMD about the hours they could run and extended them. Nobody told me about the problem until I asked to see in a locked workshop. Destroyed powerpacks bearings the lot, all spread around the workshop. Then as I had found it they could tell me the story. The manager saved hundreds of dollars per year but his first failure cost many many thousands of dollars. The Chief Mechanic who didnt want to extend running hours kept his job, the manager lost his.
Don

Ian J. Huckin

18th April 2009, 18:57

Don and Hugh,

This is a great topic because it really does stress the point that, in general, although Marine Engineers have a thorough understanding of lubrication principles and systems I do not beleive they (we) receive enough education in the actual Tribology of oil and the various formulations etc (Wiki search STLE)

My first ship's engine, an LB Doxford, ran on a vegetable based oil, you could water wash the hell out of it but God help you if you let it "stagnate" in any fashion. From then on regular mineral based oils but some you could water wash others you could not because of the difference in reaction of the addative package.

I've seen cyl oil bulk storage tanks where the additives (mainly the ZZDP and those to elevate the TBN) have precipitated out to a depth of over two feet...that's a lot of additive which should have stayed in suspension.

Anyway, back to EMDs....I guess they could maybe just about run on a straight Mobil oil because (Heck here I go again...) Mobil is such crap oil it probably did not have enough ZZDP in it to hurt those wrist pins.

I wonder what the special stresses were on that engine that required the use of such an exotic alloy to alleviate what sounds like a design weakness.

Love to hear your comments lads....(Thumb)

Beartracks

18th April 2009, 19:56

Hugh as Ian says there was a notification from EMD about oil type and use. The zinc used in some oils destroyed the wrist pins and as Ian says they managed it within hours.
Oil use was rather critical on these engines especially if they were working hard. Went to do an inspection on a rig where the manager thought he knew better than EMD about the hours they could run and extended them. Nobody told me about the problem until I asked to see in a locked workshop. Destroyed powerpacks bearings the lot, all spread around the workshop. Then as I had found it they could tell me the story. The manager saved hundreds of dollars per year but his first failure cost many many thousands of dollars. The Chief Mechanic who didnt want to extend running hours kept his job, the manager lost his.
Don

Don;

Talk about a breakdown in communications!! I bought out of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institutes pension plan almost ten years ago and was Atlantis ll's Chief Engineer for about five years and this is the first time I've ever heard of the susceptibility of EMD gudgeon bearings to zinc additives in certain crankcase lube oils. I'm quite certain that this knowledge had most likely been aquiured the hard way by one of my predecessors and somehow had "fallen trough the cracks". I thank my lucky stars that the Lube Oil provided to me was inherently safe for this type engine and that I was never in a situation where I was forced to decide on a type of Lube Oil for the engines I was responsible for.

Respectfully;
Hugh

Beartracks

18th April 2009, 20:43

Don;

Talk about a breakdown in communications!! I bought out of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institutes pension plan almost ten years ago and was Atlantis ll's Chief Engineer for about five years and this is the first time I've ever heard of the susceptibility of EMD gudgeon bearings to zinc additives in certain crankcase lube oils. I'm quite certain that this knowledge had most likely been aquiured the hard way by one of my predecessors and somehow had "fallen trough the cracks". I thank my lucky stars that the Lube Oil provided to me was inherently safe for this type engine and that I was never in a situation where I was forced to decide on a type of Lube Oil for the engines I was responsible for.

Respectfully;
Hugh

Oh.......!! I beg your pardon Ian I didn't mean to exclude you in our conversation. Since I'm here in Ship's nostalgia again and the Topic is Lube Oils concerning EMD's I'd like to change the topic slightly and refer to cylinder oil for Large Low Speed Diesel Engines. Maersk (AP Moller) saw a profit to be made by providing ships for long term charter to the United States Navy and a sub Corporation was set up to manage these assets. This sub corporation is known as Maersk USA and to my knowledge Maersk USA manages about 55 vessels under American Registry at the present time. A series of Danish Flagged Container Ships were re-flagged a number of years ago and converted to be Maritime Prepositioning Ships to carry all the bombs , beans and bullets a US Marine Corps Combat Brigade would require to engage in combat for a 30 day period. These five vessels were re-named for deceased Marine Corps Medal of Honour recipients and stationed at the US logistical base in the atoll of Diego Garcia on British Territory in the Indian Ocean. Collectively the ships were known as MPSRON 3 ( Maritime Prepositioning Squadron 3) and were under the command of a US Naval Commodore although manned by civilian Merchant Mariners.

The vessels normally stayed at anchor but about once every quarter ( 3 month period) they would depart as a group to engage in "Victory at Sea" type Naval convoy exercises escorted by NATO destroyers. These ships were powered by RND loop scavenged Sulzer Large Low Speed direct coupled engines and after about three years duty it was discovered that ALL FIVE SHIPS HAD SUCH EXCESSIVE LINER WEAR THAT A FULL CHANGE OUT OF CYLINDER LINERS WAS REQUIRED.

When the US Navy acquired these ships it plugged them into its Logistical System and since nothings to good for the boys in blue all US Naval Marine Fuel is known as F-76. F-76 is the MILSPEC for Marine Gas Oil which is the required fuel for GE2500 Gas Turbine Units which are used for most Combatant type ships. The ships used a cylinder oil with a very low TBN number but even that low amount of alkaline additive was not used up since the F76 was so devoid of sulphur additives. The alkaline additives acted just like grinding compound and wore out the liners on all five ships after a running period of not more than 900 hours.

After this discovery the Navy had difficulty finding cylinder oil with no TBN additives and finally got ALF or Mobil to run some off for their special purpose at about FOUR times the cost per litre than Cylinder Oil with alkaline additive. It is my understanding that this "Gong Show" was HIGHLY CLASSIFIED for a number of years after occurring.

Respectfully;
Hugh Curran aka Beartracks

Don Matheson

18th April 2009, 21:21

Hugh
I can see why it was HIGHLY CLASSIFIED for many years. Nothing secret about it just trying to protect their jobs and pensions. I suppose it was to much to ask of the engineering experts to ASK Maersk or even Sulzer what sort of oil do you recommend for these engines. After all what would Sulzer know about oil compared to some US Navy engineer who has been in total command of desk propulsion at some office. Communication indeed.
By the way I don't mean this as a slur on US Navy engineers as I have worked with a few, one being the best engineer I ever worked with or even knew. I do however refer to the faceless people who make stupid rules without the knowledge to back them up. Cost of a phonecall 50 cents, cost of new liners for five ships at least 60 cents or perhaps a tad more.
Think you were lucky to get away with the oil use on the Atlantis 11s engines, or had you stayed on the same oil all the time you were there. Heaven forbid you would ask EMD.
Don
Do I sound a bit cynical?

Beartracks

18th April 2009, 22:53

Hugh
I can see why it was HIGHLY CLASSIFIED for many years. Nothing secret about it just trying to protect their jobs and pensions. I suppose it was to much to ask of the engineering experts to ASK Maersk or even Sulzer what sort of oil do you recommend for these engines. After all what would Sulzer know about oil compared to some US Navy engineer who has been in total command of desk propulsion at some office. Communication indeed.
By the way I don't mean this as a slur on US Navy engineers as I have worked with a few, one being the best engineer I ever worked with or even knew. I do however refer to the faceless people who make stupid rules without the knowledge to back them up. Cost of a phonecall 50 cents, cost of new liners for five ships at least 60 cents or perhaps a tad more.
Think you were lucky to get away with the oil use on the Atlantis 11s engines, or had you stayed on the same oil all the time you were there. Heaven forbid you would ask EMD.
Don
Do I sound a bit cynical?

Don;

You don't sound cynical at all. In fact you're preaching to the choir. I served in the US Navy in engineering capacities for almost thirty years and unfortunately as an Institution the US Navy has never really completely come to terms with the fact that ships are now propelled by engines and not sails.
In most of the world's big Navies. midshipmen are given a choice to pick either a Technical career path of a Tactical career path early in their Naval Careers. This is why ones sees Engineer Commanders and Engineer Captains and even Engineer Admirals in the Royal Navy as well as most other European Navies. In the US Navy an officer who specializes in Engineering creates a glass ceiling over which he will never rise. There is a Naval Corps of Professional Engineers known as EDO's (Engineering Duty Only) and even these guys hardly ever raise above the rank of full Commander. Most go into the EDO Corps because from LCDR and above they will most certainly spend the duration of their careers in Washington DC at the old Bureau of Ships now known as NAVSEA (Naval Sea Systems). They make friends with Naval Contractors during the Washington DC duty and upon retirement can look forward to lucrative civilian jobs as well as handsome Naval Pensions.

When I was at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute I was asked to serve as the "future operators representative" to SUPSHIPs at the Halter Marine Ship Yard at Passcagoula , Mississippi. NAVSEA had designed a class of Diesel Electric Research Vessels and a number of them were under construction at Halter Marine. I was assigned to oversee the fitting out dock trials and sea trials of RV Atlantis AGOR 25 a Naval Designed and owned vessel to be operated by WHOI. SUPSHIPs (Superintendent of Ship Building Conversion and Repair) is the action arm of NAVSEA (Naval Sea Systems) and provides the overview to insure that NAVSEA specs are maintained. Sorry for all the acronyms but that's how Navies speak to each other.

I recall observing the Power Factor meters indicating a leading power factor when performing load tests on the Main Propulsion Generators and called this to the attention of an Electrical Engineer who represented General Electric Corporation the designers of the system. This fellow was a Brit and very knowledgeable. As I recall he had served as if not the senior at least one of the senior Electrical Officers on the Queen Elizabeth ll. This guy re-affirmed my concerns about a leading power factor during a load test which is theoretically an impossibility. I reported this to the SUPSHIPs Electrical Engineer whose Surname was Wise. Mr. Wise informed me that this was how the system was designed. After this I always referred to Mr. Wise as Mr. Not so Bright. I went to the Lieutenant Commander in charge of the Project who had good survival instincts but like Notsobright was no Rocket Scientist either and told him that this would make SUPSHIPs look extremely foolish and thankfully had VAR meters installed instead of power factor meters and made sure that the wiring insured the VAR meters indicated an inductive lagging reading which is what one expects on a Marine Switch Board.

When the Atlantis ll was formally handed over to be operated by the Wood's
Hole Oceanographic Institute my position morphed from being the "Future Operator's Representative to SUPSHIPs" to the Chief Engineer of RV Atlantis AGOR 25. I could wax philosophical about these matters till the cows come home but for better or for worse that's just how things are Don.

Respectfully;
Hugh Curran aka Beartracks

surfaceblow

18th April 2009, 23:40

Hugh
I can see why it was HIGHLY CLASSIFIED for many years. Nothing secret about it just trying to protect their jobs and pensions. I suppose it was to much to ask of the engineering experts to ASK Maersk or even Sulzer what sort of oil do you recommend for these engines. After all what would Sulzer know about oil compared to some US Navy engineer who has been in total command of desk propulsion at some office. Communication indeed.
By the way I don't mean this as a slur on US Navy engineers as I have worked with a few, one being the best engineer I ever worked with or even knew. I do however refer to the faceless people who make stupid rules without the knowledge to back them up. Cost of a phonecall 50 cents, cost of new liners for five ships at least 60 cents or perhaps a tad more.
Think you were lucky to get away with the oil use on the Atlantis 11s engines, or had you stayed on the same oil all the time you were there. Heaven forbid you would ask EMD.
Don
Do I sound a bit cynical?

The problem lies with the Navy and MSC have to deal with the procurement office for the parts and supplies needed. This office then gets a fleet contract for all of the ships in there respective fleets. Then logistics would base the allowance of supplies and parts on board on a formula based on fleet usage. (Not so good when the ships are in reduced operating status most of the time).

I was on a ship that had one other ship in the class. The other ship had a failure of the air conditioning system and was not operating it. The difference in the two ships was I was burning one gallon more an hour of diesel fuel per hour with the 400 ton air conditioning unit on. I had to write a report on why I was consuming more oil to the MSC and the operating company. We also had to berth the crew of the sister ship onboard or pay for their lodging.

Joe

Don Matheson

19th April 2009, 19:34

Joe Hugh and Ian Used to work with a chap who had been US Navy's youngest Engineering Petty Officer who at the age of 21 was running one of the engine rooms on a destroyer in or near Vietnam. He was turned down for riverine work as being too valuable but was asked if he wanted to try nuclear submarines. Was told he would need to go to Navy school for 2 or 3 years to learn about boats so quit and joined the oil industry. Worked with him for 5 years so learned a lot of Navy ways and the stupidity mixed with it. You are not alone in that I do believe every navy has it and like everything else it will only get worse. What is the point of trusting a chap that you trained and promoted when you can get an inexperienced chap in an office to tell him what to do.
I do believe my mate would have been an asset on any boat but He just could not handle the school for so long. Had he been given school one year at a time with some seatime he would have been ok, but as they wouldnt change they lost a great guy.
Don

Don Matheson

19th April 2009, 19:40

Hugh

Used to do a loat of loadtesting so could you explain your leading power factor problem and what you did to cure it or did US Navy happily except a different meter?
Don

Ian J. Huckin

19th April 2009, 21:00

Don and Hugh,

I appreciate the friendly communications, and here are a few thoughts on the Sulzers:

Obviously the loop scavenge engines put a lot more "strain" on cylinder lubrication because of the greater amount of contaminents left after each combustion process. Those engines you mentioned seemed to have been laid up for most of the year and, as you say, the high alkaline reserve in the cyl oil would attack the liner wall without the neutralizing effect of the sulpher (naturally in the fuel and % dependant on what field the original oil came from).

The additive for raising the TBN would not be abrasive in itself, though, if excessive, would not burn off completely and could become abrasive after being subject to combustion heat. The lower the % sulphur in the fuel, no matter what fuel, would require a complete re-assessment of the TBN of the cyl oil to be used.

I don't mean it to sound like I am preaching but I just love discussing lubricants and lubrication.

Was it ever considered to shut off the cyl oil supply from the header tank, drain the lubricator boxes and hand fill with straight C/C oil? Then each day hand crank the lubricators and turn the engine on gear. This would have left the cyl walls/ring pack protected without the high alkaline. Then on starting the engine just re-open the supply from the cyl hdr tank.

Ian

Beartracks

19th April 2009, 21:32

Joe Hugh and Ian Used to work with a chap who had been US Navy's youngest Engineering Petty Officer who at the age of 21 was running one of the engine rooms on a destroyer in or near Vietnam. He was turned down for riverine work as being too valuable but was asked if he wanted to try nuclear submarines. Was told he would need to go to Navy school for 2 or 3 years to learn about boats so quit and joined the oil industry. Worked with him for 5 years so learned a lot of Navy ways and the stupidity mixed with it. You are not alone in that I do believe every navy has it and like everything else it will only get worse. What is the point of trusting a chap that you trained and promoted when you can get an inexperienced chap in an office to tell him what to do.
I do believe my mate would have been an asset on any boat but He just could not handle the school for so long. Had he been given school one year at a time with some seatime he would have been ok, but as they wouldnt change they lost a great guy.
Don

Don Joe Ian.............The US Navy constructed a class of Amphibious Assault Ships the first being USS Whidby Island. The Navy had and still has a love affair with an opposed piston two stroke engine known as the Fairbanks Morse 38D. The number 38 is for the year the Engine came out . I believe it was originally designed for locomotives but was used extensively in WW2 Submarines and throughout the fleet since then as a generator prime mover as well as main engine for smaller harbour craft. Amidst much wailing and gnashing of teeth it is being replaced in fleet service by Caterpillar 3500 and 3600 Engines because the latter can meet the new stringent emission standards. The Navy wanted the new class of "Alligators" to be powered by GE 2500 gas turbines but were told by the General Accounting office in Washington DC that Gas Turbines were out of the question for Amphibious Assault Ships because they burned far to much fuel and ordained that the new ship be powered by Commercial Medium Speed Diesels. Fairbanks Morse tried to expand their Opposed Piston 38D to a larger IHP model to meet the new requirements. The new ships were on the ways with bed plates for these new OP engines already constructed and it was found out that the newly designed engines wouldn't meet ship design standards. The Navy had Fairbanks Morse by the short hairs as they had a contract for an engine and Fairbanks Morse couldn't deliver same. In desperation Fairbanks Morse/Colt Industries became the Licensee for SEMP Pielstick and each of this Class of Amphibious Ships is fitted with Four 15000 HP Colt -Pielstick PC2 Engines.

I was one of about twelve marine engineers who were and still are assigned to make passages on these ships and attend RAVs (restricted availability ship yard maintenance periods) as well as certify Engine Inspectors to attend these vessels. Years ago when serving as a young Lieutenant Junior Grade on ATC Tango Boats on the waters of the Mekong Delta in Vietnam I became a master of the understatement. When something so frightening and horrible would occur , something that would literally paralize one with fear as well as horror. I would (afterwards of course) refer to the incident as having been FASCINATING. I tell you this because most if not all of my mentoring experiences with the US Navy's Whidby Island class LSD's (Dock Landing Ships ) have been far more FASCINATING than anything I ever came across in South East Asia.

Respectfully;
Hugh

Ian J. Huckin

20th April 2009, 17:41

Hugh,

One of the better aspects of my present job is that I have a whole bunch of different generation prime movers to manage:

Cat diesels up to 6,000 hp
Enterprise diesels up to 9,000 hp
FM diesels up to 2,500 hp
Various small diesels up to 1,000 hp
Solar Combustion Turbine 8,000 hp
Twin Pelton type Hydroelectric 15,000 hp each
Going on line this year 3 GE Wind Turbines 2,000 hp each

I mention this because the FMs are damn ugly, smelly, dirty, smoking S.O.Bs and I try not to run them at all. Favorite diesel would be the Enterprise (De Laval) DSRV 16-4 7.2MW at 420 RPM, 30 years old and still more fuel efficient and reliable than the latest 36/16 Cats. Also the Enterprise(s) can be endlessly re-built whereas the Cats have to be thrown away after 50,000 hrs.

The relevance here on SN though is that I love my hydros, just like a ship going backwards!!!!!!

Beartracks

20th April 2009, 18:25

Hugh

Used to do a loat of loadtesting so could you explain your leading power factor problem and what you did to cure it or did US Navy happily except a different meter?
Don

Don;

RV Atlantis had a twin drive z drive power train with the z drives being run by two stabilized shunt 750 volt DC Motors. The Motors were energized by two GE Rectifier Drives with a constant 600 Volt poly phase input and a 750 volt to 0 Volt DC output. There were two main switchboards one the Propulsion Board which accommodated Three 1500 KW / 2000 KVA Propulsion Generators and would supply up to 4500 KW of Propulsion Power to the Switch Board. The second major Switch Board was the Ship's Service Board which would accommodate Three 750 KW /1000 KVA Gen Sets. The Ships Service Gen Sets could be put on the Propulsion Board but the Propulsion Generators could not be placed on the Ships Service Board. Clean Power for Scientific Functions were provided by power from two motor generator 400 KW ea Units. Those big rectifiers certainly would chop up the Propulsion AC Power. The pattern on an ocillieo scope resembled a rip saw rather than a SINE wave.

The indication of a leading power factor of .75 was caused by a wiring mistake on the GE wiring diagram. The mistake was rectified (that's not a pun} and I prevailed to SUPSHIPs to Install KVAR meters in Place of the existing Power Factor meters as the var units gave the operator a much more precise indication of load sharing. I believe the Designed .75 Power Factor was the result of the big Rectifier Drives being in the system as NEMA calls for a Design Power Factor of at least .80. Once all the kinks were done away with the system worked fine and the vessel ran with an unintended engine space.

Respectfully;
Hugh Curran aka Beartracks

Beartracks

20th April 2009, 18:38

Hugh,

One of the better aspects of my present job is that I have a whole bunch of different generation prime movers to manage:

Cat diesels up to 6,000 hp
Enterprise diesels up to 9,000 hp
FM diesels up to 2,500 hp
Various small diesels up to 1,000 hp
Solar Combustion Turbine 8,000 hp
Twin Pelton type Hydroelectric 15,000 hp each
Going on line this year 3 GE Wind Turbines 2,000 hp each

I mention this because the FMs are damn ugly, smelly, dirty, smoking S.O.Bs and I try not to run them at all. Favorite diesel would be the Enterprise (De Laval) DSRV 16-4 7.2MW at 420 RPM, 30 years old and still more fuel efficient and reliable than the latest 36/16 Cats. Also the Enterprise(s) can be endlessly re-built whereas the Cats have to be thrown away after 50,000 hrs.

The relevance here on SN though is that I love my hydros, just like a ship going backwards!!!!!!

Ian.....I'm quite happy we met here at Ships Nostalgia since I'm embarking on a new "Golden Year" career as an Insurance Company Surveyor at Power Plants and large Paper Mills here in Northern New England. Nothing but HIGH PRESSURE and HIGH TENSION. I also teach Marine Engineering at a Middle School here in Maine. I never did like golf or tennis and for the most part foot ball bores me. I hope you stck around. I'm sure you'll receive some plantive pleas for me now and then.
Warmest regards;
Hugh aka Beartracks

Beartracks

20th April 2009, 19:50

Don and Hugh,

I appreciate the friendly communications, and here are a few thoughts on the Sulzers:

Obviously the loop scavenge engines put a lot more "strain" on cylinder lubrication because of the greater amount of contaminents left after each combustion process. Those engines you mentioned seemed to have been laid up for most of the year and, as you say, the high alkaline reserve in the cyl oil would attack the liner wall without the neutralizing effect of the sulpher (naturally in the fuel and % dependant on what field the original oil came from).

The additive for raising the TBN would not be abrasive in itself, though, if excessive, would not burn off completely and could become abrasive after being subject to combustion heat. The lower the % sulphur in the fuel, no matter what fuel, would require a complete re-assessment of the TBN of the cyl oil to be used.

I don't mean it to sound like I am preaching but I just love discussing lubricants and lubrication.

Was it ever considered to shut off the cyl oil supply from the header tank, drain the lubricator boxes and hand fill with straight C/C oil? Then each day hand crank the lubricators and turn the engine on gear. This would have left the cyl walls/ring pack protected without the high alkaline. Then on starting the engine just re-open the supply from the cyl hdr tank.

Ian

Ian.....At the time these five motor ships were re-flagged to USA registry to be operated for the US Navy by the newly formed Maersk USA : the American Merchant Marine was basically a Steam Powered Merchant Navy as far as all vessels over 6000 HP were concerned. The Europeans were light years ahead of the United States as far as expertise in design and operation of Large Low Speed Diesel Engines were concerned. Fuel was reasonably priced in the USA the foreign trade vessels ran on Government Subsidy and the Steam Technology was a spin off from the US Navy by this time the world's largest and almost totally steam powered. Even today when most large US Flagged Merchant Vessels are powered by Large Low Speed Diesels the Engines are fabricated under license to Wartsella and Man/BMW. I'm quite happy I was not serving on any of those five LLSDs at the time of the "Liner Massacre" but had I been I believe I would have followed your RX to the letter and avoided a tragedy on my ship. I am fortunate enough to possess duel nationality (Ireland ,European Common Market) as well as USA and I had amassed considerable Large Speed Diesel Engine Experience by serving in Scandinavian as well as Panamainian and Liberian Registered Large Motor Ships.

Maersk USA made it manditory that all the Engineers serving on the five re-flagged vessels made a number of voyages in their Danish Flagged Large Motorships but alas I think not for a long enough time period.

Best Regards
Hugh Curran (aka Beartracks)

surfaceblow

20th April 2009, 22:05

While I was Chief Engineer on the Cape Hudson for awhile (6/95 - 1/98) and later on the USNS Gilliland (12/00 - 10/04) (both B & W's). I spent a lot of time at Diego Garcia on the Cape Hudson. While I was at D. G. I was told that the Maersk was allowed to continue to operate the vessels commercially after the purchase inspections by the Navy and that there was no delivery inspections.

While on the Cape Hudson we were supplied with IFO 180 for the Main Engines since we could not get the 21 knots burning F-76. One of the requirements for us that we had to burn F- 76 while maneuvering to clear the fuel lines of the IFO 180. While burning the F-76 we would have the cylinders lubricators set to supply more lubrication since the pistons were moving slower. Most of the time we would be sitting at anchor and have to rotate the engine weekly to lubricate all of the moving parts. During ABS inspections we found that we had the start of pitting on some of the bearings and piston rings from dry contact. We also had to do a monthly readiness test and we usually went around the island bi weekly then monthly when the fuel budget would not allow us to play convey. I use to hate being paired with the Maersk ships since there top speed was around 13 knots we would have to break away from the convoy to pick up speed and blow out the stack of unburnt carbon.

On the USNS Gilliland we used F-76 for every thing. When Patriot Contract Services took over operation of the Gilliland from Bay Ship my first inspection of the engines showed that the engines were being over lubricated cylinder oil especially the wing engines and we had no wear on the cylinder walls. The lubricators were calibrated and set to the B & W recommended settings. With all that free wheeling the scavenge air trunk was loaded with pools of diesel and cylinder oil. The wing engines were direct drive with a mechanical coupling the center engine had a Controllable Pitch Prop. (You had to decide what speed you wanted before hand 17 - 18 knots the center engine above that all three. It took about an hour to couple or uncoupled the engines with the shafts stopped). The Wing Engines would start to free wheel about six knots once the engines started to free wheel you gained a knot. We use to get perfect smoke rings when the wings engines were started the bang that was made would cause the mates to call down. After six trips to Kuwait B & W came back that we were still burning too much cylinder oil since we should have more wear on the cylinder liners. I guess B & W wanted to sell more liners and MSC wanted to reduce the cost of the cylinder oil. On both the Cape Husdon and USNS Gilliland we were using Mobil Gard 570 cylinder oil which is a high TBN oil that is good for fuels with sulfur conteent range from 1.5 per cent on up.

Beartracks

20th April 2009, 23:12

While I was Chief Engineer on the Cape Hudson for awhile (6/95 - 1/98) and later on the USNS Gilliland (12/00 - 10/04) (both B & W's). I spent a lot of time at Diego Garcia on the Cape Hudson. While I was at D. G. I was told that the Maersk was allowed to continue to operate the vessels commercially after the purchase inspections by the Navy and that there was no delivery inspections.

While on the Cape Hudson we were supplied with IFO 180 for the Main Engines since we could not get the 21 knots burning F-76. One of the requirements for us that we had to burn F- 76 while maneuvering to clear the fuel lines of the IFO 180. While burning the F-76 we would have the cylinders lubricators set to supply more lubrication since the pistons were moving slower. Most of the time we would be sitting at anchor and have to rotate the engine weekly to lubricate all of the moving parts. During ABS inspections we found that we had the start of pitting on some of the bearings and piston rings from dry contact. We also had to do a monthly readiness test and we usually went around the island bi weekly then monthly when the fuel budget would not allow us to play convey. I use to hate being paired with the Maersk ships since there top speed was around 13 knots we would have to break away from the convoy to pick up speed and blow out the stack of unburnt carbon.

On the USNS Gilliland we used F-76 for every thing. When Patriot Contract Services took over operation of the Gilliland from Bay Ship my first inspection of the engines showed that the engines were being over lubricated cylinder oil especially the wing engines and we had no wear on the cylinder walls. The lubricators were calibrated and set to the B & W recommended settings. With all that free wheeling the scavenge air trunk was loaded with pools of diesel and cylinder oil. The wing engines were direct drive with a mechanical coupling the center engine had a Controllable Pitch Prop. (You had to decide what speed you wanted before hand 17 - 18 knots the center engine above that all three. It took about an hour to couple or uncoupled the engines with the shafts stopped). The Wing Engines would start to free wheel about six knots once the engines started to free wheel you gained a knot. We use to get perfect smoke rings when the wings engines were started the bang that was made would cause the mates to call down. After six trips to Kuwait B & W came back that we were still burning too much cylinder oil since we should have more wear on the cylinder liners. I guess B & W wanted to sell more liners and MSC wanted to reduce the cost of the cylinder oil. On both the Cape Husdon and USNS Gilliland we were using Mobil Gard 570 cylinder oil which is a high TBN oil that is good for fuels with sulfur conteent range from 1.5 per cent on up.

I think the Navy would have been better off to spend the money required to get those big European Motor ships on reconditioning older steamers in the USA that were no longer commercially viable. They would be quite economical on anchorage. I was Chief Engineer in Stephen W Pless for a number of years. She and her two sisters were the last big steamers built in USA Ship Yards. We all were acquired by the Navy and were used as Pre Positioning Ships and difficulties were minimal. We used to participate in the "Northern Wedding" Exercises bi annually where we practised putting a Brigade of Royal and US Marines on the North Cape of Norway . This was the tactic to be used to threaten the Right Flank of the Warsaw Pact Armies if the Balloon ever went up. Thank God it didn't huh..?? Although it still could I guess if and when the Israeli's nuke Iran. I used to burn over a thousand barrells of F76 a day to get 20 knots out of the 30000 HP cross compounded gear reduced set up on Pless. "NOTHING'S TO GOOD FOR THE BOYS IN BLUE"

Best regards;
Hugh Curran aka Beartracks

Ian J. Huckin

21st April 2009, 16:29

Ian.....I'm quite happy we met here at Ships Nostalgia since I'm embarking on a new "Golden Year" career as an Insurance Company Surveyor at Power Plants and large Paper Mills here in Northern New England....
Warmest regards;
Hugh aka Beartracks

Good luck to you Hugh with the surveying. It's like you gather all your knowledge, experience and your "little black book" of contacts and hit the road. It really is a baptism by fire. I've been trying to get back with LR or ABS but they are quibbling about my lack of seatime since '94 when I came ashore. I'm sure it will work out well for you though.

Power stations are a doddle but 'dem ol' paper mills might cause you some grief. Lubrication is a b**** in those plants due to water and caustic ending up in the oils. Greases don't suffer so bad as long as they have a high wash resistance. Rule of thumb is stay clear of any Mobil product.

I'll be keeping an eye out for you.

Best wishes,

Ian(Thumb)

Ian J. Huckin

21st April 2009, 17:13

While I was Chief Engineer on the Cape Hudson for awhile (6/95 - 1/98) and later on the USNS Gilliland (12/00 - 10/04) (both B & W's)....

G'day surfaceblow,

I really get interested in fuel and lub issues so I hope you don't mind if I throw a few ideas around here relating to your post....please don't think I am preaching I just relish the discussion (such topics are bleak ashore!!!).....so swing the lantern and let's get started.....

As your engines were probably set up (timing and fuel v/v lift pressure, hole size, number of holes and spray angle) for IFO180/360 there would be a drop in power output using anything lighter as the cetane value was probably higher. This would result in MEP occuring earlier in relation to crank angle and not at the optimum time.

I know the MAN 'K' series engines had the cyl lubricator drive linked to the main fuel positioning rod (from the governor/controls) so if you reduced RPM the fulcrum for the cyl oil lubricator drive changed and increased the stroke of the pumps. Even so, for manouvering, we would manually adjust each box to increase lub for the period of stand by.For the life of me I cannot remember how this was on Sulzer, B&W etc. Either way, after many years trading the Great Lakes on Slow Speed diesels cyl lub at low RPM had to be in the back of your mind all the time.

Not too sure about the rotation of the engine only once a week. Couple of issues here: If you had diesel generators running during this period then the vibration of these engines would potentially cause "brinelling" of your M.E. crankshaft bearings and, potentially, rings in liner, scraper rings on rod. Moving daily would prevent this (providing the engine was stopped in a different position) Ideally, if no c/c work is going on, run lub oil p/ps for 30 mins and turn engine on gear prior to knocking off for a beer at n/n. (Hand crank cyl lubs while turning)

Cyl lub at FSS should be expressed as grms/bhp.hr or similar and keeping that figure balanced across each cylinder (cards and flow measurements) and in line with manufacturers recommendations usually works.

If you were getting pitting on rings and bearings there would be two different causes: rings would be pitting due to supher remnants from fuel/combustion mixing with moisture in the air to cause an acid...thus pitting. Pitting on bearings (in a 'X' head engine) would not be due to acidic action (unless your diaphrams were totally shot) Pitting would most likely be "spark errosion", i.e. fixed engine parts and ship are the stator and the crankshaft and prop are the rotor. The PD caused by rotation should be negated by your shaft earthing ring (if brush gear is clean) if not the PD is discharged across the crank journal to the bearing metal, which being softer, leaves a hole. PD caused by a non ferrous prop (electrolytic - much lower) should be isolated from the bearings by an oil film (another reason for daily lub and TG) but the reason it is happening in the first place might be because your zincs are shot or, if you had impressed current cathodic protection, it was not calibrated correctly.

Just some ideas, what do you think?

Best wishes,

Ian(==D)

surfaceblow

21st April 2009, 18:47

I think the Navy would have been better off to spend the money required to get those big European Motor ships on reconditioning older steamers in the USA that were no longer commercially viable. They would be quite economical on anchorage. I was Chief Engineer in Stephen W Pless for a number of years. She and her two sisters were the last big steamers built in USA Ship Yards. We all were acquired by the Navy and were used as Pre Positioning Ships and difficulties were minimal. We used to participate in the "Northern Wedding" Exercises bi annually where we practised putting a Brigade of Royal and US Marines on the North Cape of Norway . This was the tactic to be used to threaten the Right Flank of the Warsaw Pact Armies if the Balloon ever went up. Thank God it didn't huh..?? Although it still could I guess if and when the Israeli's nuke Iran. I used to burn over a thousand barrells of F76 a day to get 20 knots out of the 30000 HP cross compounded gear reduced set up on Pless. "NOTHING'S TO GOOD FOR THE BOYS IN BLUE"

Best regards;
Hugh Curran aka Beartracks

Hugh
I would have loved to have a kept up steam ship, but just after the first gulf war that other maritime union went before congress telling the Armed Forces Committee that they did not have the required members to operate steam ships effectively. Most of the ships that they took out of the reserve fleet had to turned around for repairs.

Since they donate more money to congress than we did they got more people to listen to them. I'm not sure if our union officials testified at the hearings.

Joe

surfaceblow

21st April 2009, 19:58

G'day surfaceblow,

I really get interested in fuel and lub issues so I hope you don't mind if I throw a few ideas around here relating to your post....please don't think I am preaching I just relish the discussion (such topics are bleak ashore!!!).....so swing the lantern and let's get started.....

As your engines were probably set up (timing and fuel v/v lift pressure, hole size, number of holes and spray angle) for IFO180/360 there would be a drop in power output using anything lighter as the cetane value was probably higher. This would result in MEP occuring earlier in relation to crank angle and not at the optimum time.

I know the MAN 'K' series engines had the cyl lubricator drive linked to the main fuel positioning rod (from the governor/controls) so if you reduced RPM the fulcrum for the cyl oil lubricator drive changed and increased the stroke of the pumps. Even so, for manouvering, we would manually adjust each box to increase lub for the period of stand by.For the life of me I cannot remember how this was on Sulzer, B&W etc. Either way, after many years trading the Great Lakes on Slow Speed diesels cyl lub at low RPM had to be in the back of your mind all the time.

Not too sure about the rotation of the engine only once a week. Couple of issues here: If you had diesel generators running during this period then the vibration of these engines would potentially cause "brinelling" of your M.E. crankshaft bearings and, potentially, rings in liner, scraper rings on rod. Moving daily would prevent this (providing the engine was stopped in a different position) Ideally, if no c/c work is going on, run lub oil p/ps for 30 mins and turn engine on gear prior to knocking off for a beer at n/n. (Hand crank cyl lubs while turning)

Cyl lub at FSS should be expressed as grms/bhp.hr or similar and keeping that figure balanced across each cylinder (cards and flow measurements) and in line with manufacturers recommendations usually works.

If you were getting pitting on rings and bearings there would be two different causes: rings would be pitting due to supher remnants from fuel/combustion mixing with moisture in the air to cause an acid...thus pitting. Pitting on bearings (in a 'X' head engine) would not be due to acidic action (unless your diaphrams were totally shot) Pitting would most likely be "spark errosion", i.e. fixed engine parts and ship are the stator and the crankshaft and prop are the rotor. The PD caused by rotation should be negated by your shaft earthing ring (if brush gear is clean) if not the PD is discharged across the crank journal to the bearing metal, which being softer, leaves a hole. PD caused by a non ferrous prop (electrolytic - much lower) should be isolated from the bearings by an oil film (another reason for daily lub and TG) but the reason it is happening in the first place might be because your zincs are shot or, if you had impressed current cathodic protection, it was not calibrated correctly.

Just some ideas, what do you think?

Best wishes,

Ian(==D)

Hello Ian

On the Cape Hudson the injectors were replaced with a more modern spray pattern. Once in a while you would find that there would be a mixture of new and old tips in the head. This was not to good for the engine. I can not remember if the timing was changed at the present time.

The cylinder oil lubricators on the B & W's are ran off a shaft connected to the chain drive. Each lubricator box has a handle that has allows you to raise or lower the amount of cylinder oil to each cylinder. The normal procedure was to start the lube pumps around 0600 at 0800 the crew would pre lube the cylinder oil about twenty pushes on each lubricator before the turning gear was put on. After twenty to thirty minutes on the turning gear the engine would be blown over on air in the forward and reverse directions. If we were at the anchorage then the engine would be also fired on fuel.

On the pitting of the bearings and pistons on the main engine was not noticed before during other inspections. I had always rotated the engine weekly and some times more often depending on what maintenance was taking place.

During the shipyard period the Engines on the ship were sealed up due to sand blasting and painting of the ship. All of the engine room inspections other than the switchboards, sea chest were scheduled for when the ship was out of the dry dock and when the painting was finished. During the shipyard period all of the crew had to leave the ship for some spraying of the accommodations with bug juice. The Second Assistant Engineer returned to the ship before I did and turned on the Lube Oil Pump after he had the plastic removed from the engines. On my return it was found that the bilges had filled and the water and sludge entered the Main Engine thur the bottom dry pipe gaskets that were dry rotted. All of the oil in the engine was emulsified. We pumped out the oil and had the sump cleaned and inspected.

I always believed that the pitting started at the same time that the new CAPAC System was commissioned. The CAPAC System was installed at the yard but was not turned on until the paint cured. Before the installation of the CAPAC unit we used zinc anodes.

The ABS Inspections did not start until the end of my four month vacation. I returned in the middle of the bearing inspections.
Joe

Ian J. Huckin

21st April 2009, 20:32

Joe,

All points noted and thanks for the discourse.

I assume CAPAC was some sort of impressed current cathodic protection right? If so, looks like we share the same opinion.

We were advised to turn ours off when alonside as a pier/jetty/berth on steel piles would be "attacked" by the anode/cathode effect.

Wished I could have sailed those big buggers you were on....

Ian

surfaceblow

21st April 2009, 20:59

Hello Ian

Yes the CAPAC System is a impressed current cathodic protection system. Yes the system was off most of the time. Just like a Xerox CAPAC is a company that made impressed current cathodic protection systems famous. The last ship I sailed on had a Wilson Walton System onboard but every one called it the CAPAC System.

Joe

Ian J. Huckin

23rd April 2009, 17:51

Hello Ian

Yes the CAPAC System is a impressed current cathodic protection system. Yes the system was off most of the time. Just like a Xerox CAPAC is a company that made impressed current cathodic protection systems famous. The last ship I sailed on had a Wilson Walton System onboard but every one called it the CAPAC System.

Joe

Joe,

Did you ever come across the theory that if you cranked the "CAPAC" up it would reduce fouling?

Ian

surfaceblow

23rd April 2009, 18:06

No I did not hear about the reduced fouling.

On a number of occasions the vendors review of the monthly readings would come back with questions about unreported groundings to the office. The bottom paint was removed and the readings went up.

The Captain was not to happy that he had the CAPAC log to answer to from the company.

Ian J. Huckin

23rd April 2009, 22:25

No I did not hear about the reduced fouling.

On a number of occasions the vendors review of the monthly readings would come back with questions about unreported groundings to the office. The bottom paint was removed and the readings went up.

The Captain was not to happy that he had the CAPAC log to answer to from the company.

Something to do with the electric current reacting with the SW generating chlorine gas I think.....(Smoke)

Re the groundings, experienced something similar and it was due to the various "probes" being painted over at the previous drydocking so they were not up to full snuff. But when hull steel was exposed it really affected the readings....

surfaceblow

24th April 2009, 00:07

One tanker I was on had a chlorine gas generator that used electric current and platinum or titanium plates the chlorine was piped to the suction of the cooling pumps to keep the marine growth to a minimum in the coolers. It was a lot less work than adding chemicals to a pumping system to do the same thing.

On a different ship we used chemicals to limit the growth of marine life. I could not see any benefits to adding the chemicals (Drew product) When the ship left the middle east after five years to go back to the states. The mussels de-attached from the copper nickel pipes when we reached colder waters.

Most of the coolers were plate coolers so taking them apart was not to difficult.

A year later there was a continuing saga of the mussels, acid cleaning the pipes that led to a black out with ABS and the USCG onboard, and the base fire truck being called to the ship for a dock side explosion and a non conformance report to the company. But it does not have any thing to do with EMD's.